Being loving VERSUS being rational? I think not....

Concerning faith and reason….

Recently, I stumbled upon a post warning Christians about the use of logic. Since it intrigued me, and since it is a common misconception within some Christian circles, I thought I would present my thoughts about it.

The post states:

“On this day, God wants you to know... that love is the opposite of logic. Logic is argumentative, aggressive upon the mind, splits the world into right and wrong, us and them. Love is generative, compassionate, embracing all creation. Logic pays attention to what is being said. Love pays attention to how things are said. Logic leads to debate. Love leads to communion. Practice love to be closer to God.”

It might surprise some of us to know that the word “logic” comes from the Greek word, “logos,” which usually translates as “word” in the New Testament. It appears, for example, in John 1:1, where the divine nature of Christ is strongly pronounced:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

A more common word used in the New Testament is “rhema,” meaning a “sound,” a “word,” or more generically an “utterance.” However, John does not use that particular word here, but opts for “logos,” which entails more than just a “sound” or an “utterance.”

“Logos” also conveys the idea of a coherent speech or a message. Unlike the word “rhema,” it intends to convey the idea that the word uttered is not just a sound, but a meaningful and rational articulation, meant to explain or reveal something. The word “logos” also means a “statement” or a “speech,” particularly of the kind intended for rational discourse.

Jesus is the very “logos” or “word” of God:

“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (John 1:18).

Turning our attention to the English word “logic,” it is important to mention what it means. Logic refers to the study of the principles of coherent reasoning. It is the process of proper inference. For an example of coherent reasoning or rational thinking, consider this: If we know that A=B and that B=C, then we can conclude, coherently, that A=C.

A classic example of a logical expression (in this case, a logical syllogism) is:
1)      Socrates is a man.
2)      All men are mortal.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

There are laws which govern rational thinking. We tend to abide by them intuitively, whether we are able to articulate them or not. For example, if I said that Socrates is a man, and that all men are mortal, but concluded that Socrates must, therefore, be immortal, then most of us would understand that my conclusion is incoherent: Either Socrates is not a man, or it is not true that all men are mortal, or both—one of these would need to be false in order for my conclusion to be valid. This has to do with the laws of logic:

The first law of logic is the law of identity.  It states that something is what it is, and is not what it is not.  For example, a rock is a rock and not a frog.

The second law of logic is the law of non-contradiction.  This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way.  In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that a statement is either true or false.  “We are here” is a true statement.  “The planet Mars is in my pocket” is not a true statement. (taken from carm.org/ questions-logic)

Now, in regards to the post above, it contains a certain kind of irony that actually undermines its entire claim. First, it attempts to construct a rational argument by making the statement that “God wants you to know... that love is the opposite of logic.” However, how does the author of the post know that God wants us to know or believe this particular message? Is it found anywhere in Scripture? Is it sent by some secret revelation to the author and not to us? The author simply does not legitimize their claim to speak for God, but expects us to accept the claim at face value.

Aside from that, is it actually true that love is the opposite of logic? If I took such a statement to heart, then could I not also conclude that love is not the opposite of logic—since logic adheres to the law of non-contradiction and the opposite of that is to contradict myself? Does love mean, then, that it is okay to contradict myself? What about God? The Bible teaches that “God is love” (1 John 4:8,16). Therefore, does this mean that God can also contradict Himself? Does this mean that God and logic are also opposites?

The trouble with such thinking is that nothing is true and nothing is false, including the statement I just made. To deny logic is to subject one’s self to an absolute chaos of the mind, where God created it to be orderly. This is not love, but sheer insanity.

The first sentence of the post requires that I consider it to be a logically valid claim. It states that logic and love are “opposites” and goes on attempting to demonstrate how that is so—Law of identity. However, I cannot consider it to be valid and invalid at the same time and in the same exact sense—Law of non-contradiction. Either the statement is rationally valid or it is not—Law of excluded middle.

Indeed, the claim that logic and love are opposites can be shown to be blatantly false. Consider the following logical argument:
1)      Scripture commands that the followers of Christ are to love their neighbors.
2)      I am a follower of Christ and Jane is my neighbor.

Therefore, Scripture commands that I love my neighbor, Jane.

I logically concluded that I am commanded, by Scripture, to love my neighbor, Jane. However, how can this be if love and logic truly were opposites?  By definition, opposites oppose one another. But here, we see no such opposition. This is because the actual opposite of logic is illogic, not love. Likewise, the opposite of love is not logic, but…well…it depends on how you define “love,” which the post we are investigating does not do. Is it “hate?” Is it “apathy?” Is it the opposite of whatever preconceived notions about “love” which the reader brings to the text?—Yes! It is.

The post goes on to say, “Logic is argumentative, aggressive upon the mind, splits the world into right and wrong, us and them.” Well, this is interesting. Isn’t the author engaging in an argument by insisting that logic is divisive? After all, not all people would affirm such a thing.

 How, exactly, is logic “argumentative?” Or rather—and this is probably what the author really intends to say—how are those that think logically “argumentative?” Actually, if one stops to think about this for a moment, would it not be that it is those who think illogically who would tend to be more argumentative? Three irrational people considering the same problem would be expected to arrive at three irrational, different, and contrary conclusions:
1)      2+2=8
2)      2+2=164
3)      2+2=3.6 x 10

So which is the correct answer? Couldn’t irrational people argue about this indefinitely, since they have no rational basis upon which to appeal to in order to resolve their argument?

Likewise, three rational people, using logic, would all agree that 2+2=4. So, what is there to “argue” about? If any argument erupts at all, it is because irrational people deny that which is logical. Also, if logic splits the world into “us” and “them” or “right” and “wrong” categories (something which the author of the post is actually doing irrationally), it is on the basis of what is rational versus what is not.


As far as the statement that claims logic is “aggressive to the mind” is concerned, I am not sure what is intended by this statement. Is it because the truth hurts? Because it’s hard to think? I do not know.

The author goes on to say, “Love is generative, compassionate, embracing all creation.” Generally, this is a true statement. However, it is spoken in order to be a contrast to further define what logic is not. It is offered as a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. I agree that love is “generative,” but it does not follow that logic is not (circular reasoning). Actually, logic helps generates correct answers to problems, which can be used to resolve differences or disagreements between people, as we saw above. Indeed, if disagreements are not discussed, or properly debated, then no resolution could ever be achieved and nothing would ever get done.

The issue of compassion and of logic not being “compassionate” is like comparing apples to oranges. Love and logic are two very different categories of existence. Nonetheless, in order to obey the biblical imperative to show compassion and mercy to others, I must read and apply the Bible in a rational manner—just like the example above, where I am instructed to love Jane, my neighbor. Compassion and rational thought are not mutually exclusive realities, but different aspects of one reality, or a biblical world-view.

Love embraces all of creation is an ambiguous statement—what is meant by it? Does it mean that I should love all of creation? Should I love devil worship, for example? Does it embrace logic? If the author intended Creation—that which God made before the Fall—then it might be theologically appropriate. If the author meant fallen creation, then do they embrace devil worship? The author simply does not distinguish between the two. Regardless, logic helps us to know God’s creation and that which He has revealed to us.

In the next couple of sentences, the author writes, “Logic pays attention to what is being said. Love pays attention to how things are said,” which is another example of a false dilemma. Is it true that those who love one another do not pay attention to WHAT is said? Of course not! Is it true that those who think logically do not pay attention to HOW someone might say something? Once again, this conclusion does not follow. In reality, love may motivate me to listen to what a person says and how they say it, while logic would indicate that I should pay attention to both and consider it in a coherent fashion. Ironically, the author of this post wants us to focus on WHAT is being said, while I am demonstrating HOW it is being stated irrational.

(Indeed, I am troubled that a person would choose to deny logic in order to establish “a communion” with God, when the Bible instructs us otherwise).

Since the statement “Logic leads to debate. Love leads to communion,” has been sufficiently dealt with above (I’ll leave to readers to use logic to understand why), let’s turn to the concluding sentence of the post, “Practice love to be closer to God.”

While there is nothing wrong with the statement in and of itself, the writer means to convey the idea that one should be “loving” and not its opposite, or what is allegedly “logical.” However, this is not an “either/or” sort of problem, but a “both/ and” communion between logic and love. The author has actually created an artificial problem to debate about. To be rational does not mean to be “devoid of love,” as the author falsely accuses. Likewise, to be loving does not mean to be utterly “irrational.” By setting an artificial wedge between these two concepts, the author merely redefines both words and prevents their readers from becoming more Christ-like.

God the Father is love (as stated earlier), but Jesus Christ is the Logos, who fully and rationally explains the Father to us (John 1:18). Theologically speaking, the problem with denying logic in order to appear as though we were promoting love is that such poor reasoning drives a wedge in the Trinitarian unity of God. For if Christ was not the rational expression of God the Father, it means that He is an unreliable expression of God’s very nature! Irrationality is not reliable, truthful, or trustworthy…but Christ claims to be these very things.

The notion of rational debate or logical argument is condemned as unloving in the post. However, when we read about Christ’s many, many debates in Scripture, should we conclude that they were irrational? If not, then should we say, then, that Christ was divisive, argumentative, and unloving? Or do we say that He was both rational AND loving?

Jesus uses the law of identity in Scripture (cf, Matt 5:37)

He uses the law of non-contradiction in Scripture (cf, Matt 7:15; 24:24; John 8:12, 32, 42-47)

He uses the law of excluded middle in the Bible (cf, Matt 12:30; Luke 11:23).

Now, as the verses above show, Jesus’ messages conform to the laws of logic. Had they not conformed to rationality, they would be irrational and we would be free to dismiss them readily. Does this mean I am elevating logic to godhood? Absolutely not! I agree that God is more than rational thought or logical reasoning. However, that does not make it necessary to conclude that He is, therefore, less than logical. God is the truth. This doesn’t just mean that He has the truth, but that He IS the truth—and truth is absolutely and eternally consistent, never contradicting or undermining itself.


One last point—some might feel that I am taking the post far too literally. Some might see the post and decide that the author’s “real” point was merely to contrast those who are argumentative versus those who “get along” or live “peaceably” with others. Assuming such an interpretation is correct, is it wise, then, to throw the baby out with the bath water? With such an interpretation, we are still left wondering why the author of the post would choose to approach the subject by attacking rational thought. Furthermore, does the Bible EVER command us to “get along” with others at the expense of doctrinal truth? No, it does not. Indeed, the command to love God with all of our hearts is actually part of the same commandment that instructs us to love Him with our minds. Whether I fail to do one part or the other, I have still broken the same commandment and elevate my interpretations over Him.